Put it this way - I gave Jumper 50% as I didn't think any of it was very good or very bad. There were elements that were great, and elements that were poor, but it averaged out at, well, average. Speed Racer was distinctly below average. If you want to equate my score to a more recognisable rating method, then it's just over 1 and a 1/4 out of 5. It was the race scenes that brought it up over the 1 star, I think.

Funnily enough, after saying that John Goodman was the best thing in it, there does seem a formula: If you want to make a successful animation-to-live-action adaptation, don't cast John Goodman. First The Flintstones, and now Speed Racer...

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

Bristol Bad Film Club A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

Put it this way - I gave Jumper 50% as I didn't think any of it was very good or very bad. There were elements that were great, and elements that were poor, but it averaged out at, well, average. Speed Racer was distinctly below average. If you want to equate my score to a more recognisable rating method, then it's just over 1 and a 1/4 out of 5. It was the race scenes that brought it up over the 1 star, I think.

Funnily enough, after saying that John Goodman was the best thing in it, there does seem a formula: If you want to make a successful animation-to-live-action adaptation, don't cast John Goodman. First The Flintstones, and now Speed Racer...

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

Bristol Bad Film Club A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

Don;t get me wrong, Homer. I'm not saying you miscalculated or are wrong. Just that I think 50% would have been my result based on your criteria but that's me and 26% is you. No need for us to try and convince each other otherwise.

"Box office bombs have been influencial in the past. My oft-cited Blade Runner being a case in point. "

Well Max i'll take your point about Bladerunner as being a influential movie allthough it was a flop at the time, But you could argue that Bladerunner was made at a time when film-making was at it's most pure, And films were not just made to order so they could make profit for studios owned by mulit-national corporations as they are today. I'm not saying that back in 1982 studios were interested in art and not money, But in 2008 i doubt anyone would be given the cash to make something as slow paced and nihilistic as Bladerunner. Speed Racer will never be influential simply because it was a costly failure. Today you are only considered influential if your product makes a ton of money. You could call the Rings trilogy or The Harry Potter series influential, Because the combined box office takings of those films convinced other studios that the epic fantasy genre is a commerically viable one. And on the subject of the home entertainment market, Speed Racer could do very well on there. Nobody saw Showgirls or The Shawshank Redemption (Can't believe i'm mentioning those two films in the same sentence) at the cinema, Yet during my time as a Blockbuster Video drone, Those two movies rented through the roof. So you never know Max, Stranger things have happened.

Put it this way - I gave Jumper 50% as I didn't think any of it was very good or very bad. There were elements that were great, and elements that were poor, but it averaged out at, well, average. Speed Racer was distinctly below average. If you want to equate my score to a more recognisable rating method, then it's just over 1 and a 1/4 out of 5. It was the race scenes that brought it up over the 1 star, I think.

Funnily enough, after saying that John Goodman was the best thing in it, there does seem a formula: If you want to make a successful animation-to-live-action adaptation, don't cast John Goodman. First The Flintstones, and now Speed Racer...

Slightly OT: Jumper was a frustrating film because it had so much squandered potential. The idea simply wasn't taken anywhere substantial. There was no satisfying follow through on the concepts or the conflicts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stewie_Griffin

"Box office bombs have been influencial in the past. My oft-cited Blade Runner being a case in point. "

Well Max i'll take your point about Bladerunner as being a influential movie allthough it was a flop at the time, But you could argue that Bladerunner was made at a time when film-making was at it's most pure, And films were not just made to order so they could make profit for studios owned by mulit-national corporations as they are today. I'm not saying that back in 1982 studios were interested in art and not money, But in 2008 i doubt anyone would be given the cash to make something as slow paced and nihilistic as Bladerunner. Speed Racer will never be influential simply because it was a costly failure. Today you are only considered influential if your product makes a ton of money. You could call the Rings trilogy or The Harry Potter series influential, Because the combined box office takings of those films convinced other studios that the epic fantasy genre is a commerically viable one. And on the subject of the home entertainment market, Speed Racer could do very well on there. Nobody saw Showgirls or The Shawshank Redemption (Can't believe i'm mentioning those two films in the same sentence) at the cinema, Yet during my time as a Blockbuster Video drone, Those two movies rented through the roof. So you never know Max, Stranger things have happened.

If the Wachowskis were going straight for the jugular and were only interested in making a profit, they probably wouldn't have chosen to adapt an obscure 1960s kid's cartoon show from Japan. And they probably wouldn't have taken such high risk decisions with regard to the film's aesthetic.

I'm sure they hoped people would like it. But I'm also sure they were aware that people could just as easily look at the film and go "WTF?!"

The safe thing to do would be to go down the Iron Man route - aim for realism and adapt the material in a way that would fit into the real world. But they didn't. They had a vision, and they stuck to it. Sometimes these experiments pay off, and sometimes they don't. What counts is that, like Ridley Scott on Blade Runner, the Wachowskis are trying new things and trying to push cinema in new directions. Success or failure on that wider goal can only be assessed in the coming months and years.

So let's lay that 'puritan differential' between Speed Racer and Blade Runner to rest.

Well if you actually read my post you would realise that i wasn't calling The Wachowski's intentions into question, I certaintly give them credit for trying something that's the complete polar opposite of The Matrix. If there was one thing i got from the movie was they obviously have a lot affection (sp?) for the source material. Sadly that reverence for the source material didn't translate into a very cohesive movie. Let's face it, Warners only gave them the money and the freedom to make Speed Racer off the back of the success of The Matrix and it's sequels. I could well imagine Time Warner saying "Well these boys made us a lot of money and they want to make a more box office friendly PG-13 movie which could stand to make us even more cash." Unfortunately this way of thinking has left them seriously out of pocket. Max you need to get out of this naive mind set that just because Speed Racer is visually accomplished movie, It will be regarded as influential, Because at the end of the day the only thing that influences other movies is how well the other guys are doing at the box office. It's all about the Benjamins baby.

Well if you actually read my post you would realise that i wasn't calling The Wachowski's intentions into question, I certaintly give them credit for trying something that's the complete polar opposite of The Matrix. If there was one thing i got from the movie was they obviously have a lot affection (sp?) for the source material. Sadly that reverence for the source material didn't translate into a very cohesive movie. Let's face it, Warners only gave them the money and the freedom to make Speed Racer off the back of the success of The Matrix and it's sequels. I could well imagine Time Warner saying "Well these boys made us a lot of money and they want to make a more box office friendly PG-13 movie which could stand to make us even more cash." Unfortunately this way of thinking has left them seriously out of pocket.

Oh, I have no doubt that's exactly what happened.

quote:

Max you need to get out of this naive mind set that just because Speed Racer is visually accomplished movie, It will be regarded as influential, Because at the end of the day the only thing that influences other movies is how well the other guys are doing at the box office. It's all about the Benjamins baby.

It would be naive to suggest that box office success is the only barometer by which influential movies are judged.

There's no guarantee that Speed Racer will make its mark. You can never guarantee these things. I'm merely saying that I have a strong feeling that the astounding, unique visuals of Speed Racer will indeed have an influence on the industry in a way that's not so dissimilar from Blade Runner.

Well let's put like this, Imagine if The Matrix had flopped. Eventually it would have found it's audience because that is a truly great film. it also represents a real milestone in film-making, But if hadn't done as well is it did at the box-office, I doubt that other movies would have been so quick to ape the bullet time visual effect. The reality is that film-making is now ruled by commerce rather than art (Case in point, Any rent-a-hack could get final cut on some dumb arse, by the numbers rom-com, But Martin Scorsese had to argue with Miramax over the final edit of Gangs Of New York.) Had Speed Racer done well, The method of it's filming would have been come more popular, A fad if you will, And Hollywood loves a good money making fad. Going back to my original point that in this day and age, A movie that utilisies (sp?) a certain method of filming or resurrects a genre is only counted as truly influential if it makes a ton of money. And not to be pedantic dear sir, But i think you meant to call me pessimistic. Having said this, I genuninely enjoyed Speed Racer on it's own terms. It's a flawed film for sure, But i found it quite a warm and endearing movie that doesn't really deserve all ther negative press it received. It's the only film in my recent memory that's CGI heavy and still featured charchters that i actually liked (Except Tons of fun, He can fuck right off.) That's my last post on the subject...Promise.

If the Wachowskis were going straight for the jugular and were only interested in making a profit, they probably wouldn't have chosen to adapt an obscure 1960s kid's cartoon show from Japan. And they probably wouldn't have taken such high risk decisions with regard to the film's aesthetic.

It is extremely well known in the US and has a massive following over there so I am not too sure where the obscure bit comes into it. Maybe in the rest of the world?

Well let's put like this, Imagine if The Matrix had flopped. Eventually it would have found it's audience because that is a truly great film. it also represents a real milestone in film-making, But if hadn't done as well is it did at the box-office, I doubt that other movies would have been so quick to ape the bullet time visual effect. The reality is that film-making is now ruled by commerce rather than art (Case in point, Any rent-a-hack could get final cut on some dumb arse, by the numbers rom-com, But Martin Scorsese had to argue with Miramax over the final edit of Gangs Of New York.) Had Speed Racer done well, The method of it's filming would have been come more popular, A fad if you will, And Hollywood loves a good money making fad. Going back to my original point that in this day and age, A movie that utilisies (sp?) a certain method of filming or resurrects a genre is only counted as truly influential if it makes a ton of money. And not to be pedantic dear sir, But i think you meant to call me pessimistic. Having said this, I genuninely enjoyed Speed Racer on it's own terms. It's a flawed film for sure, But i found it quite a warm and endearing movie that doesn't really deserve all ther negative press it received. It's the only film in my recent memory that's CGI heavy and still featured charchters that i actually liked (Except Tons of fun, He can fuck right off.) That's my last post on the subject...Promise.

There's no doubt that studios are looking for the next big gimmick.

I remember how, after The Matrix became a surprise smash hit and a pop-cultural phenomenon, studios began using terms like "animé-esque" and "Hong Kong influenced" and "comic book style" (and sometimes even just "Matrix-esque" or at least trying to mention The Matrix somewhere in their product) as shorthand keywords to get asses in seats. The films suddenly became chock full of pseudo-bullet time shots.

But people soon got tired of that stuff, hence the stupidly undeserved reception of stuff like Paul Greengrass's "shake it as you make it" Bourne installments. Yet the mark of The Matrix is undeniable.

I think it's safe to say that Speed Racer is officially a box office bomb. Studios won't be clamouring to emulate its style, true. But I'm sure there are a lot of savvy filmmakers and artists out there who have seen / will see this film and will think "wow, now that's cool..." in a similar way to which people saw Blade Runner (which also bombed hard) and thought "wow, now that's cool...". As with Blade Runner, it might take longer than The Matrix to really infiltrate the culture, but I'm sure we could well see that Speed Racer aesthetic (or at least aspects of it) popping up in a number of different places.

It is extremely well known in the US and has a massive following over there so I am not too sure where the obscure bit comes into it. Maybe in the rest of the world?

I don't know about the "massive following". I'm sure there are people in their 30s and 40s who remember it, but it's possible some of them have grown out of it. I reckon if Silver had got it made in the early 90s when he got it, those people would be in their 20s and 30s and may have pulled in bigger crowds.

Whatever the case, Speed Racer doesn't have anywhere near the popularity of things like Iron Man, Narnia or Indiana Jones.

it was probably more to do with the fact they're great movies than people were sick of matrix type action, the bourne series managed in 3 movies what bond took 21 to do, a credible spy thriller

Except they weren't "great movies". Not the second two.

Liman's original Bourne was really great. A 4 star film with a fresh, realistic, noirish flavour.

Greengrass's installments were criminally over praised. The only reason I can think why people liked them was because they were so shaky and impossible to watch that people assumed "hey, that's a really clever and realistic spy film!" The stories of Supremacy and Ultimatum were so boringly repetitive and inorganic, the camera work was so abysmally lazy, and the tone of the film so relentlessly monotonous, that those second two films really should be considered to be the weak knock offs they really were.

How can a film that cost $110 million look like it cost $1.10?

What the fucking hell were they doing with all that money?

As for Bond...

...I don't subscribe to the stupid arbitrariness of the Bond Vs. Bourne "arguments". I'd rather judge each series on its merits, and insofar as Casino Royale goes, I think it's overrated. In that sense, I put Casino Royale and Batman Begins in the same boat: good, but not as good as everyone seems to think. Casino Royale is flawed. The first half of the second act (all the Elipsis stuff) was perhaps the weakest stretch of the film. The film really begins to come into its own during the poker game, and you suddenly realise "oh shit...they did all that stuff in the early part of the second act to placate the usual Bond movie crowd!" Which makes it even worse. That whole section of the film feels like it belongs in a different movie.

Also, my favourite Bond movie is Goldeneye. Campbell's other Bond outing. It was essentially the best of the "Bond formula" Bond movies, with each long standing convention tuned to perfection. In strange way, the slightly more slapstick and exaggerated manner of the action that we're used to seeing in Bond films is actually more suited to Goldeneye. That's part of the reason all that crazy action stuff doesn't work in Royale - you've spent too much time trying to make a real and gritty character, and now you go and say "oh, but here's some classic Bond thrown in...just for fun".

...I don't subscribe to the stupid arbitrariness of the Bond Vs. Bourne "arguments". I'd rather judge each series on its merits, and insofar as Casino Royale goes, I think it's overrated. In that sense, I put Casino Royale and Batman Begins in the same boat: good, but not as good as everyone seems to think. Casino Royale is flawed. The first half of the second act (all the Elipsis stuff) was perhaps the weakest stretch of the film. The film really begins to come into its own during the poker game, and you suddenly realise "oh shit...they did all that stuff in the early part of the second act to placate the usual Bond movie crowd!" Which makes it even worse. That whole section of the film feels like it belongs in a different movie.

Also, my favourite Bond movie is Goldeneye. Campbell's other Bond outing. It was essentially the best of the "Bond formula" Bond movies, with each long standing convention tuned to perfection. In strange way, the slightly more slapstick and exaggerated manner of the action that we're used to seeing in Bond films is actually more suited to Goldeneye. That's part of the reason all that crazy action stuff doesn't work in Royale - you've spent too much time trying to make a real and gritty character, and now you go and say "oh, but here's some classic Bond thrown in...just for fun".

Thought this was a discussion about Speed Racer . Anyway i rate Ulitmatum and Supremacy over Identity anyday, Allthough Identity is a fine fine film. Greengrass just has the astounding ability to stage a compelling and cohesive action scene whilst employing the hectic camera work technique (sp?). I don't think you can call his camera style as energetic as his as lazy and abysmal, But hey it's your opinion. Plus i think Greengrass got a better handle on Bourne's charchter development and emotional turmoil than Liman ever did. Liman is an emotionally distant director and i never really felt he got under Bourne's skin like Greengrass did. And if you disagree with me then just imagine if Liman directed United 93. Would it have had the same emotional, Visceral power that Greengrass imbued the movie with?.

Anyway i rate Ulitmatum and Supremacy over Identity anyday, Allthough Identity is a fine fine film. Greengrass just has the astounding ability to stage a compelling and cohesive action scene whilst employing the hectic camera work technique (sp?). I don't think you can call his camera style as energetic as his as lazy and abysmal, But hey it's your opinion. Plus i think Greengrass got a better handle on Bourne's charchter development and emotional turmoil than Liman ever did. Liman is an emotionally distant director and i never really felt he got under Bourne's skin like Greengrass did. And if you disagree with me then just imagine if Liman directed United 93. Would it have had the same emotional, Visceral power that Greengrass imbued the movie with?.

Well, I think United 93 would have been emotionally involving no matter what. The subject matter was just inherently compelling.

But I do think that Greengrass' style was perfectly suited to that film, because it has a fixed number of locations, thus setting up the geography of a scene is not as important as it is in a fast paced spy thriller with globe-trotting locations. Which is precisely where we differ, since I think Greengrass's action scenes in Supremacy and Ultimatum were anything but "cohesive".

On the emotional front, you would expect sequels to delve further into a character's head. The only problem is that neither film can rise above the archetype of "brooding hero with a troubled past". In between the stupidly frenetic camera work are dialogue scenes that have Bourne bitching about "I regret this" and "I want to do this" and so on and so forth. It seems too contrived to be natural, and his choices are far too predictable.

With Identity, you have about half the film with this guy on the run. We don't know who he is, and there are bits and pieces of information flying in from all over the place as we try and piece it together. That in itself is a situation that people can easily empathise with it ("men with guns are after me, and I don't know why...I don't even know who I am!"). Then Bourne finds out who he is, and it's great to see the choices he makes and the actions he takes. It's all got an organic forward momentum, and is so inherently compelling. And him coming to terms with who he is and making a decision is what makes it more emotionally charged than Supremacy and Ultimatum. Which is weird, because you would have thought that killing Bourne's girlfriend would make it a superior experience. While it helped to a degree, it just wasn't enough to lift the stories out of mediocrity.

No, while I'm aware that people are ejaculating all over Bourne 2 and 3, I'm afraid I have to cast a dissenting vote. They were really mediocre. Though they did have some neat action scenes, even if they were fucked up by shitty camera work.

No, while I'm aware that people are ejaculating all over Bourne 2 and 3, I'm afraid I have to cast a dissenting vote. They were really mediocre. Though they did have some neat action scenes, even if they were fucked up by shitty camera work.

No, Max, they are unappreciated masterpieces and the story was just too complex and went over your head! Sound familiar?

Only joking. I agree with you about the first Bourne film and the sequels not being up to scratch.

No, Max, they are unappreciated masterpieces and the story was just too complex and went over your head! Sound familiar?

It sounds familiar because someone just cited that a couple of days ago with regards to Indiana Jones!

And it's actually a valid argument. Sometimes a film can go for a certain vibe, but it doesn't "click" with you. In other words, you don't "get" it. It goes "over your head". And I conceded with Raiders that it probably did go "over my head"...which is more of an admission than I've heard for The Matrix Trilogy.

And yes, when the camera moves so damn fast, not only does it go "over your head", but it actually breaches the atmosphere and goes into orbit. It's that impossible to understand.

quote:

Only joking. I agree with you about the first Bourne film and the sequels not being up to scratch.

Honestly, no-one wanted to like Supremacy and Ultimatum more than me. I would have seen Supremacy twice just to make sure it was really as bad as it was, but my head was still spinning from the first showing...

I've never had a problem following the action in the Bourne sequels and i actually think there are some truly great scenes in there for the action thriller genre. I always thought the hectic camera work gives them a punchy and gritty look, But hey to each their own. You're probably right about United 93, But you really need a special kind of director for that job, And i really don't rate Liman that much, Apart from of course Identity and Swingers. If i ever use the word Cohesive again, I'll personally give you my address and you can beat me up if you wish.

One of the most visually colourful films in years,this may be empty,is certainly overlong and has at least three characters who really don't need to be in the film,but makes for great escapism. The onslaught of bright colours [think Days Of Thunder on E] makes for a terrific sensory experience and many of the attempts to translate the texture and style of anime to the big screen really work. Rather underrated generally,with the race sequences generally thrilling and lots of quirky and amusing touches. Remove 30 mins and you've got a four star movie!

I was trapped in london last wek with a few hours to kill and thought I would pass the time by watching this. I had followed the build up over the previous few months and really didnt care, especially after reading the review, but as I have seen just about everything else and the timing was right though I would pop in. and. Its really good, Its not going to win any awards for writing acting or directing, but for pure, switch off your brain popcorn entertainment the film just clicked for me. Loved the racing, I thought that even for a cartoon film the flipping around car-fu stunts wouldnt work but they were exhilerating and have the added bonus of blocking any potential film version of wipeout that some braindead executive my try and create. The majority of the plot kept me entertained, the family dynamic and troubled past of our protagonists was enough to keep me going until the next race. Now i know I may take some grief for this but special mention should go to both the sidekick younger brother and the hammy villain who rather than irritate actually had me in hysterics

by the way, thats the first time that ive been to the Empire at Leicester Square in years and I had forgot how beautiful screen 1 is. You guys are spoiled.